click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 104 (some duplicates have been removed)
payroll tax to gross receipt tax and why? because by doing that we can create jobs in san francisco and keep people in san francisco . the kids are growing up and we want them to stay but we need jobs. i agree with mr. crowley with the police force and make sure that is fully staffed and i have been speaking to the police athletic league and they have a program to breen the teenagers to be interns in the police force and they would feed into the police cadet program. thank you. >> thank you sir. the next question the city's liabilities are projected to increase in the next coming year. s what new or increased fees should it institute and i will repeat the question and we will begin with mr. crowley. >> i would say that one of the bigger things that we will have before us is the gross receipts tax check that norman talked about trading from the payroll tax which is punitive. the next thing i would do is increase the foot print on mos sony center and that brings in a lot of money to the general fund and erect a multi-purpose area and bring in more money to the coffers and a green i
to take away, that i haven't mentioned is this is a 100% private financed. no tax increases. no money from the general fund. [ applause ] benefits will be many. jobs obviously through the construction process, but also hundreds of permanent, well-paying new jobs. san francisco will finally have a world-class multi-purpose venue for music, artists who cannot today play in san francisco, for business and cultural event to fill a void in joe's portfolio of convention and other business coming to the city. family shows and for us, most importantly a new home back in san francisco, where the warriors started. certainly will contribute to economic growth, new tax revenue, and create a publicly accessible waterfront attraction that does not exist today. we passed a big milestone in naming our architectural team and we choose two firms that are going to be responsible for the design of this project. san francisco's acom, bill crocket is with us today. they are the most experienced arena architectural firm in the core and have been .yn 30 projects over the decade and bill personally involved with t
by the treasurer, tax collector and then the city attorney, so welcome. >> good afternoon, members of the committee, i stated in our response to the grand jury report the district attorney opened a preliminary review into possible consumer fraud issues related to the collection of surcharges back in 2011. in that review is still open and pending. we read with great interest the report of the grand jury and have requested that the foreperson provide us with the underlying documents from which the data were derived. our understanding is that he is consulting with the grand jury's counsel to work out privilege issues to determine whether this information can be related to us. we look forward to working with the grand jury and hopefully we'll be receiving as much as they can possibly provide to us without having any privilege issues. going forward, it is our understand hating the olse will be auditing employee's surcharges in the course of investigating employee complaints, about evaluations of the hcso, section 14.3 subsection d, the olse may refer consumer fraud to our attention, we will upon any rec
of tax receipt of what that means, so then it's the job of our office or other prosecutors to try to say, well, it's consumer fraud because you're misrepresenting to the customer what you're using it for when in fact if you look at the loosely worded language on the receipt, you can't really say that in fact it was a misrepresentation and that's where the problem lies. >> well, i think -- i don't want to -- because we have a number of people that want to speak, but i think what the district attorney just said i think proves the point that i have been trying to make is that you may play with lang wamg, you may say we don't want them to do this or that but at the end of the day, so long as the law allows them to collect money and not necessarily spend it and you don't define expenditure the way we were trying to do, this is going continue to be a problem because there are ways that they're always going to be able to manipulate the wording of the surcharge, so i think that's a problem and i think that the d.a. only confirms what we've always said. >> president chu? >> i had two observations
with the responsibility of collecting and maintaining the sales and use tax program within the state of california along with a whole host of other types of taxes including environmental fees, timber tax, property tax, cigarette, alcohol, i believe there's over 20 taxes that are involved. in response, i believe finding number 3 was what we were asked to respond to and on september 10 or a letter dated september 10 was provided to the grand jury. i don't know if that is -- if you've gotten that or what. i mean, so what i will do is summarize that letter and explain what actions the board of equalization has done in regards specifically to the surcharge. sales tax applies to the sale of tangible personal property and the amount upon which that tax applies is the gross receipts under 6012 which is our reference, the gross receipts are anything that are charged so if you go into a liquor store and you buy some beer and it's 5 dollars, we want sales tax on five dollars, gross receipt ares also going be defined as any surcharges that are added and on a number of occasions, we do come across surcharges, for ex
and the hotel tax is not collected. should the city legalize some or all of the arrangements and collect a hotel tax and we will begin with you -- i will be glad to repeat the question. >> i honestly don't know how you would enforce a law like that. of course everyone should pay their fair share but i don't know how you could enforce that. i believe we should standardize the inlaw units, maybe sure they're up to code and regulate any new units but as far as taxation i cannot see how you could actually enforce that and collect the taxes on it. >> thank you sir. mr. yee. >> cheryl i just want to make sure -- >> i can repeat it. there is internet base market for short base rentals and they sublease units to visitors and tourists and many are illegal and the city's hotel tax is not collected. should the city legalize these arrangements and collect the hotel tax? >> i traveled to different countries and i go to the internet and they have hotels and these rentals advertise and i have used these apartments as rentals for either a few days or one week and it's kind of nice to be there so i would supp
the compendium or payroll tax, all of the variety of cost of doing business and this is why i think i understand from what you're saying, that would be harder to prosecute, i completely understand that. we may decide that's a problem, but i think that's what i hear you saying, you're not necessarily saying if the surcharge was on health care and that money was not used for health care, that that would be -- to me, that's much more clear cut situation. >> that's exactly what i'm saying but i do want to say it's not theoretical, without going into the open investigation that we have, i will say that it was obvious to me as i think it was to the grand jury that they're moving to a broader surcharge language, at least a number of them are and that trend may continue, so that the ability to track exactly what they're taking in and what they're paying out and whether or not they're making any type of misrepresentation to their customers is more difficult. >> thank you, logs, any -- colleague, any additional questions. er >> we'll hear from the tax collector's office, thank you very much. >> good afte
of infrastructure districts which is in a form of tax increment financing, in the wake of redevelopment agencies, more focus came to this tool, this year and two major bills are on the governor's desk at this point. ab2144 which is the speakers bill, generally provides a broader use of infrastructure financing districts. one thing the two bills and i will discuss the second bill in a second, have in common, and this was a fatal flaw i think in earlier versions of infrastructure financing district bills. it would have allowed entities to scoop up tax increments out of school districts share of local and both of these bills have prohibitions against that. the reason is the state is compelled to backfill any of those kind of redirections. so these bills have a higher degree of promise of being approved. the speakers bill is a broader-based bill it is more akin to a redevelopment agency structure and the one unique feature of this bill different from the second bill i mentioned as second, is that it still requires a vote to establish the infrastructure district. 55 percent vote of the populous and t
coming together on issues that affect all of us, tax reform, housing, fixing our parks and open space, fixing our streets. this year we have come together in an unprecedented way to put these issues to the ballot, because we agree it's the right time for smart and long-term investment in our city and in housing and in parks and in tax reform. together we're putting people back to work and building our city at the same time. now it's time to reform our tax structure. a lot of people ask me, well, mayor, what is this business tax reform? what is it all about? it's very complicated. well, i will tell them it's about real people, about business, and about real jobs. because it's now that we're the only city in the state of california that has a payroll tax, literally a tax on job-creation. it doesn't make sense. so i'm happy to report that we at last are reforming our business tax structure to stop taxing jobs. and help companies large and small to stay here, to grow here, and to continue starting here as well. we need to protect existing jobs and we need to spur job-creation. our co
's on the november ballot. and i encourage everybody to vote for it. on the ballot as well is a business tax restructure to bring in new revenue for the city and many millions of dollars from that, about 13 will be dedicated to the affordable housing so we can ramp up development of affordable housing in san francisco. >> thank you. mr. everett? >> providing affordable housing is a central and extremely important issue. that being said, we also need to look at how we deal with public housing within the city and county of san francisco. i grew up in section 8 housing. i know what that is like. i grew up on food stamps, i know what that is like. we need to understand how we can end some of the cycles that we talk about on a day to day basis and the root causes of those cycles. the way to address those is to directly target the housing crisis in san francisco and directly target hud housing. we do that by providing vouchers to folks. with the vouchers you could take a family and moved them into mixed income units. i am a product of that. i am a product of a young person being able to wake up
taxes. i have served on the sunshine task force and we had a lot of members of public come in front of us, looking for reasons why all of these projects were overbudget and i think there is a lot of waste there government. we just talked about the hetch hetchy matter and building was supposed to be $140 million, but it was actually $65 million over budget. the department of public works doesn't even have all of its receipts. the bond oversight committee is supposed to be have access to those receipts. they can't get them. so we ce[6ud money is not accounted for. we found waste in the arts commission, which the controllers office confirmed and the civil grand jury confirm and we also found waste in various other departments. and this board of supervisors needs people on it who will actually ask those questions. thank you. we have a couple other candidates who wanted to jump in here. mr. davis and miss selby. >> after $1.5 billion in public service sector cuts in san francisco since 2008, since our budget crisis, we can't balance our budget going forward on cuts alone. we have got
in the united states. it generates $9 million tax revenue a year and the buddhists say in heaven and hell is on everyday. you come into the city, can you go church and come out and go to westportal and get a ticket. i think that is morally wrong and gouging and gouging and eventually it's just bad pr and for the generating 2.5 million dollars on this budget it's senseless and it's just more government putting the throats -- putting the boots on the throat of the average day citizen. >> all right. thank you sir. mr. yee. >> so let's face it. let's not make our parking meters the atm for the city. i mean we really need to support the notion that we don't want meters to operate on sunday, especially in our district, district seven. the business corridors need access to customers and when you charge on sundays and parking meters the same people shopping and at restaurants they're going to go somewhere else. they're going to go to stonestown and the malls and if you believe in the small businesses in the community then we need to support the notion that we're not going to allow for park
through the special tax assessment against the specific parcel over a 20-year term. the port must opt into the special tax district, however the special taxes are secured by the tenant's leasehold interest. >> port in return would pay its prorated share of the special taxes which is approximately 35 percent, and that was derived by the amount of space that the port occupies as compared to the project over all. which are estimated to be approximately $100,000 annually. >> the sublease agreement, between the port and prologis provides for the reimbursement of the taxes leveed against the tenants especially to reduce the operating expenses. >> the project sponsor through the controls and the project sponsor is over here aaron blinkly and cordova is the director and johnson is represent as well. they have prepared extensive models on the energy safe ands their estimates through the sustain able improvements will be approximately $100,000 annually. so that equates to the cost of the special tax assessment. and so that is in the first year. the projections, however, take into account energy
amending the business and tax regulations police and planning codes regarding parking tax simplification for property taxes. >> president chiu: now to supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: as i said before this is what i meant to raise. we have a typographical errors in the ordinance that need to be amended. so we are distributing those. but, colleagues, before we get to that this legislation seeks to simplify the process for small property owners to pay our city's parking tax. under our codes, all people who rent parking spots, even a homeowner who represents a single spot to a neighbor is required to pay the parking tax. small property owners who rent that one spot are treated the same way by our city as the fifth mission garage. we don't distinguish between them. what that means is you have to get fingerprinted, you have to have a background check, you have to buy an expensive revenue control device, you have to get bonded, you have to pay a yearly fee, which can frequently exceed the amount of tax you owe, and you have to pay all taxes collected on a monthly basis. this legislatio
tax and that is a start but we have to press this and business friendly city and benefit those in business and benefit those in need of job when is we have 8% unemployment here in san francisco. >> thank you sir. ms. gavin. >> i would invest in transportation, in public transportation it would be muni. i think a lot of areas that we need to upgrade muni and put it under ground. i would invest in the ferries. i think being a tourist city and many people commute to the city i think it's one area a lot of jobs would come from is invest in the public transportation. there si pending grant for the train to no where with the project. it's $942 million grant that san francisco may get and it's a lot of money, but that train isn't going to connect to the k, l, or m that see the break downs everyday. i know because i ride it so i would heavily invest in all of the public transportation. dc has a bullet train that goes 100 miles per hour. we can have one too. >> thank you. mr. lasos. >> this is not just a problem for san francisco. it's a problem for america. america is losing
there been tax credits or other things that can help them create better ground floors? >> becoming landmarks will allow building owners to take advantage of various tax credits through facade easement programs and the availability of the mills act. there are no other sort of direct financial incentives that the city has at this time, but the planning department staff is always available to help with design and we do frequently do story placements and having done this research, we have the original plans for a restoration program if that's available to them. okay, we have devised a mechanism whereby store fronts are the review of alterations of store fronts are handled at a staff level through an administrator's certificate of appropriateness to minimize the importance of public hearings. >> i imagine you notified the property owners that we're doing this, will they get notification about the tax credit program because i think it miekt incentivize some of the property owners to do this, they have obscured store front levels which i know is in violation of the planning code and whether or not
consumption. in this year's election the city of richmond will vote on a tax for penny on sugary beverages.eqc to encourage healthier behavior and recover the cost of providing medical services to people who become sick from alcoholic abuse or unhealthy diets? >> no. >> london breed, no. [ laughter ] >> you are up first, right? >> miss johnson? >> i agree with london breed, no. i will say that the health care costs associated with alcohol and sugary drinks is what is the problem and we need to address the health care and insurance issues. i happen to be new york when mayor bloomberg announced he was going to restrict the amount of sugary drinks people can buy. people were very upset by that. i wonder how upset they would be if they knew they were collecting money because in new york they are not actually collecting money. because a lot of people who have these problems don't have a lot of money and the a lot of people that don't have a lot of money live in areas where they don't have access to healthy food and that is a lot more of a problem. now you are imposing even more money on th
about and some are already being worked on including congestion pricing and a downtown transit tax assessment district because downtown businesses are the greatest benficiencies and should be paying their fair share in terms of busing their employees on a daily basis. i think muni has had a shortfall ever since the state gas tax money, since we lost that money and we have to look at how we're going to solve muni's long-term budget problem and get a muni system that is efficient and runs on time and not cutting fares while expanding fees. we can do that with a vehicle license fee on the local level, with a gas tax on the local level and i would like to work with our state legislators to make that possible here in san francisco. >> thank you. miss olague? >> well, again, we have, as most of you know a transit-first policy in san francisco, and in my conversations with the mta, that is their justification for wanting to impose these fees or parking meter usage and what not. but i think that even though i have been a huge proponent of transit first for a number of years and i do suppo
and taxes for the city. we have a whole expansion team. it's' private-public partnership. all partnering to make this thing happen. so what is our goals? is that location has changed dram itally and to work cost-effectively to stay onbudget and deliver the project. so this is the context of where we're looking at. it's right on the lines of new central subway. there will be a moscone stop. we have three separate buildings, south opened 32 years and north opened 20 years and moscone west opened a little over ten years ago. for the study looked at that whole area and looked at the three moscone sites and the two garages, 5th and missing the and the moscone garage between folsom and howard. one of the problems with moscone center it was built basically when the neighborhood was not what it is today. and it was built kind of in independent, isolated area to almost a suburban-type building in what has been a very urban area. we market san francisco as a pedestrian-friendly city and pedestrians are not allowed to walk around the moscone center in some areas. so we need to improve how it fun
. there are no increases to the highway... to the federal gas tax. >> it maintains existing structure. and it also maintains it beyond of life of safety-lu. so there is senator and we will not have to face a renewal of the gas tax on the expiration of map 21. >> as far as the implementation of safety-lu in the state of california. we are looking to see about the same level of funding over all as a state. of approximately $3 and a half billion under the two programs. but, the key issue is that the funding programs are distributed. the funding is distributed differently, and there is a tug of war going on right now as we speak between the state and the regions about how that funding will be distributed. so, and i will get to that in a moment. but the issue will be discussed in detail at the ctc meeting on september 26 and 27th in burning game. over all the proposal maintains the current level. -safetea-lu-calls for a 50/50 split for the funding sources which in the past had been funded two-thirds to the region and one-third to the state and this is primarily the surface transportation program which
of this agency, and the role of tax increment financing, which is what we're really talking about. in 1989 the old imperial redevelopment agency was done in by this board of supervisors when it allowed the use of tax increment financing subject to fundamental and basic changes in the structure of the redevelopment agency. and it has been that agency from 1990 on that we're dealing in terms of this successor agency. it is important to understand that the board of supervisors insisted that for the use of tax increment financing, understanding during the battle days of urban renewal no tax increment financing was allowed. the point is that the board of supervisors insisted on its direct control, including land use controls that i believe exist in this ordinance and in the amendments proposed by the council of community housing organizations. i would be happy to answer any questions, if there are any. seeing none, i will go. [ laughter ] >> we may have them later for you. thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. thank you, mr. president. members, my name is arnold townsend and i just wanted to
supporter of the park merced project which ties into how we can increase our tax base income. you turn around and create opportunity. the government cannot create opportunity. the development will create opportunities which will bring employment in. it will bring businesses in and it will turn around and increase our tax base and it has to come from the private sector and i believe the project is a very good project and i support it. >> thank you sir. mr. yee. >> here are my two criterias when it comes to housing. i believe in reasonable growth and i believe in healthy robust community process, so here we are. we just developed something in our district on ocean avenue and we had a healthy discussion around the avalon development. broke ground. no protests. people agreed on it. felix circle we had a healthy discussion and we will have additional housing there too. i was just up on crest mount drive. there is controversy over there whether this is reasonable or not and i don't think the developer who is have presented the project is reasonable, but the neighbors in seem to
a few items, one was a tax simplification for residential properties, it would amend the tax code, the police code as well as a minor amendment to the planning code, it would simplify the requirements for less than 5 parks spaces per building, the commission recommended approval, this item was amended to incorporate your recommendations, commissioner owagi asked for some more analysis by the planning department, she requested a continuance to october 2, supervisor wiener at the hearing reviewed the continent, the ordinance and stressed this commission had already reviewed the ordinance and recommended approval. supervisor avalos subjecting that the substance of a cac's concerns were discussed committee and the board voted 10-1 to approve the ordinance. also before the full board on tuesday was the tidf, the transportation impact of man fee update ordinance, the commission heard this ordinance on july 19, you recommended approve for modification, they requested substitute legislation with those modification, the full board continued it to october 2 without any discussion, so i expe
refers to the response by the city and county of san francisco treasure and tax collector and to the response board of equalization, with regards to finding number 4, we disagree, there's process in place at olse to collect, analyze and report on employer's surcharge data in compliance with provisions, it increased olse's budget. with regards to fundbacker finding number 5, again, respectfully disagreeing, olse's 2011 annual form, employees were asked to report to surcharge collections and expenditures for employee health benefits in 2011, effective 2012 in january as per an amendment to the schonf the amount of surcharges collected for employee health care exceeds the amount spent on employee health care tha, employer must irrevocably pay and designate that amount equal to that amount. finding number 6, partially disagree, the board of supervisors defers to the response of olse, and it is as follows, the ordinance regulates surcharges imposed on customers to cover in whole or in part the cost of the health care, it is difficult in some circumstances which of any portion o
mammoth tooth. these are standard reports. the budget tax reports is through the end of the previous fiscal year. it shows we were within budget on the capital side. we are right now in the process of getting financial statements ready for year-end. the budget tax report does reflect operating budget is the subject of another item later on in the agenda. i will be happy to answer questions about that now or the time that item is called. the second report is the contract status report. the memo makes reference to another item we will talk about in more detail later on the agenda, which is changes to the dbe and fbe programs. the proposed dbe goal. that shows contract activities are proceeding as planned and shows our payments for the federal fiscal year to dbe is 7.2 million and 36.3 million to sbe through the three-quarters of the federal fiscal year so far. the third report is our investment report. shows our position in our bank account, the city and county equity pool and our trust account which holds land fill proceeds and the final report is inception, expenditure and revenue fo
, corporate tax breaks, chain stores and parking garages, a vision for san francisco that doesn't include a lot of everyday people. it's getting to where students and seniors on fixed incomes and young families and teachers and firefighters and everyday folks can no longer afford to live in san francisco. we have a crisis of affordability here. i think the city's economic development polices have a lot to do with why we're starting job/housing imbalance when you are so focused on the power elite, the twitter tax breaks and not focused, which i think we need to start to do. on the economic development interests of our small businesses. which are the life blood of the san francisco economy 80% of our economy is small business along our commercial corridors and most jobs are created by small businesses each year. the city needs to reorient its economic polices towards small businesses and start to remove the red tape and stream-lining the permitting process and other ways to facilitate small businesses to thrive and survive in san francisco. so my no. 1 priority is reorienting our economic
it notified in a public circulation and thanks like that. you can't put it on the property tax rule. they do that because they understand the department's need, certain powers, there has to be balance and equity among certain groups. i guess the water department is able to put this on the property tax role too. without getting into details because i know my time is limited. there's a lot of things i'm uncovering. this just seemed quite unfair. it tilts the balance of fairness away from the property owners who are semi-innocent in this situation. >> your point is clear and we will take a look at that and get a report back. >> should i have -- i have the stuff you sent. would there be any help in me submitting this or no? >> yes, if you could give that to todd. >> okay. all right. thank you very much, appreciate your time. >> is there an appeal process for these kinds of issues? >> we do have todd, the assistant general services c.f.o. this is a commercial account as i recall it. so it goes through the standard procedure, and we are on a bimonthly billing cycle. we have a delinquency notice
million contribution to the general fund for transfer taxes. [ [ laughter ] [ applause ] looking forward this is foundry square 3. this is the last of the four buildings at the corner of1st and howard. this is a project that was originally envisioned by studios and william wilson and associates. we were extraordinarily lucky to pick up this last corner to complete this project earlier this year. we began construction in july. construction is going extraordinarily smoothly. we expect to be done by the end of next year, but no, despite the rumors in the marketplace, we don't have a signed lease. but we are blessed with a tremendous amount of interest and activity in this building. we hope to follow it next year with 222 2nd. this is just a block to the west at the corner of 2nd and howard. it's a 450,000 square foot building. both of these buildings from a location standpoint and a product standpoint we're trying to carefully position as the crossroads of the traditional cbdg, but very much in the south of market tech-friendly locations in terms of the size of the floor plans and the way
in the gas tax, the federal gas tax. but there is a clear need, as you saw in the plan, for new revenue. so, we picked up a new revenue, it's going to be user based. whether it's congestion pricing, whether it's vehicle miles per traveled tax, the same way that the insurance picture is going. you know, you pay for what you use. so, we think this is something that we need to stay ahead of because when the moment comes for these programs to be implemented subregionally or regionally, the city needs to have a clear picture what it wants to do, what the priority investment strategy should be with those revenues and how it wants to mode the way people use the system. we're still involved, but we are at an in between place where we're waiting for national/regional to catch up with us. >> thank you for that. >> commissioner olague, did you have any other question? >> yes, van ness vrt funding. >> vrt project i think is doing great in terms of having our locally preferred alternative identified and the federal transit administration has already given us -- given mta, in fact, $15 million pre-invest
order, na's fine, we have the department of public health, the district attorney, the treasurer tax collector, the city attorney, the mayor, and then after the city departments, we do have someone from the board of equalize sashes that will address us around the tax issue and is the golden gate association which voluntarily responded to the civil grand jury. so, we'll start with olsc. and olsc is office labor standards enforcement. >> good afternoon, members of the committee, i appreciate your time and the opportunity to be here. i'm going to try to do a couple of things in quick succession, i will recap our responses to the civil grand jury report and then i was going take a moment to summarize the report that we issued in august on the 2011 data that was submitted to us, much of that has been discussed already so i'll try to get through that quickly and high lying a few things that haven't been addressed so far. with that, we were asked to respond to just six of the 13 findings from the civil grand jury so i'm going walk through those, the first finding indicated that the jury cou
that money for the homeless should come from downtown corporations through the war profit tax and provide housing for the homeless. we have a cacantacy rate here that is high and park merced where it's high and i believe those units should be used to house homeless people with the revenue generates from the war profits tax so that's what i would propose in dealing with the homeless issue. >> all right. thank you sir. mr. rogers. >> you know sadly the 50% of the homeless are actually vietnam veterans and so this makes homelessness really a national embarrassment. in the past they had post traumatic stress disorder was claimed to be -- the people had it before they were in war, before they went through a terribly difficult time and they did not provide the people any money. fortunately with the obama administration this has changed and these people are coming back and being able to be given some money, so on the federal level i think there's some improvement. when it comes to san francisco i think we need to do more, and i would research this further and answer that question later. tha
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 104 (some duplicates have been removed)